Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drug Impaired Driving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears evidence on oral‑fluid roadside screening for drug‑impaired driving
Summary
Law enforcement and the state toxicology lab presented pilot results supporting use of oral‑fluid screening devices at roadside. The bill would recognize oral‑fluid tests and make refusal subject to administrative consequences similar to breath tests; no committee vote was taken during the hearing.
BISMARCK — The House Transportation Committee heard technical testimony on House Bill 1370, a measure to recognize on‑site oral‑fluid screening tests during drug‑impaired driving investigations and to treat refusal of certain roadside chemical tests within the administrative framework applied to breath tests.
Representative Pat Heinrich, the bill sponsor, opened the hearing by saying the measure would allow law enforcement to use oral‑fluid swab devices as a validated screening tool for on‑the‑spot detection of drugs. Trooper Tarek Chase of the North Dakota Highway Patrol said the department had run a pilot of the Sotoxa oral‑fluid device from January 2022 to July 2023 and that the device is "a viable and beneficial tool for law enforcement officers." Chase, who coordinates drug‑recognition programs for the patrol, told the committee the device provides results in about five minutes and that pilot data showed polysubstance use in more than half of samples submitted for confirmation testing.
State toxicologist Janelle Porcheller of the Office of Attorney General crime laboratory division presented the lab's evaluation of the pilot. Laboratory comparison of Zetoxa results against evidentiary blood specimens showed most test panels (cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, cannabis, benzodiazepines, amphetamine) performed with sensitivity, specificity and accuracy generally above the 80 percent range for many panels; some panels (amphetamine, benzodiazepine) had lower performance for reasons the lab explained in its written evaluation. Porcheller emphasized the device is a screening tool and not an evidentiary confirmation; blood or urine evidentiary testing would still be required if an arrest occurs.
Trooper Chase and Porcheller both said the devices were purchased with federal grant funding and that current pilot protocols dispose of cartridges after use; the device stores only the printed or electronic result, not the oral‑fluid sample. Committee members asked whether oral‑fluid results would be used only to support impairment investigations or could trigger other criminal searches; witnesses said evidentiary testing is still the basis for criminal charges and that the roadside test is intended to provide probable cause consistent with standardized field sobriety tests.
No committee vote was taken during the hearing; committee members asked technical questions and indicated follow‑up with the Department of Justice and the state lab would continue.
